text:
Raman spectroscopy used like a GPS to map toughening in zirconiaPublished on August 22nd, 2011 | By: Eileen De Guire
GPS is a great tool. It can guide you turn-by-turn to your city's shopping mall. It is, in fact, an "in situ" device and observes your location in real time. Once there, however, you will need to go inside and look at the mall's directory to find the Apple store (c'mon, we know where you were going). The GPS won't get you the whole way there, but it will get you into the region where you can find what you are looking for.
A paper that was published recently in the online Early View of the Journal of the American Ceramic Society (doi: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2011.04737.x) by Bolon and Gentleman demonstrates a GPS-like use of polarized confocal Raman spectroscopy to study ferroelastic domain transformation in ceria-stabilized zirconia. They were interested in whether or not a Raman technique could be used for in situ, nondestructive characterization of thermal barrier materials, a common application of zirconia-base materials.
Lots of research has been reported on toughening of zirconias. Transformation toughening—increased toughness resulting from the tetragonal to the monoclinic phase change—is the most common toughening mechanism. However, transformation toughening runs up against the realities of the phase diagram and the crystallographic transformation does not occur above about 800°C.
Toughening that occurs above 800°C is thought to be the result of ferroelastic domain formation and switching. Bolon and Gentleman define a ferroelastic material as one that contains "at least two energetically equivalent orientation states and it must be possible to move between those two states through the application of an external load."
In the case of polycrystalline tetragonal zirconia, the c-axis orientation is equally distributed between the x, y and z directions. When a load is applied, the grains where the c-axis is aligned parallel to the load undergo a reorientation so that the c-axis becomes perpendicular to the load. This is the ferroelastic switching mechanism. To increase the toughness of tetragonal zirconias, energy is absorbed through the reorientation of the tetragonal domains in the presence of a stress field (from the applied load). The stress required to trigger domain switching is the coercive stress.
Raman spectroscopy is usually used as a bulk characterization tool. In this study, the researchers used polarized confocal Raman spectroscopy to observe ferroelastic domain formation in the surface of the material. The Raman images, in effect, map out the regions where ferroelastic switching occurred under load. Those regions can then be looked at more closely using other techniques like TEM.
The authors studied polycrystalline 18-mol% ceria-stabilized zirconia. Two methods for applying loads were used: Vickers indentation and uniaxial compression in a diamond anvil.
In the illustration above, the top is a white-light image showing the Vickers indent with a dashed line (click on image to enlarge). Cracks can be seen emanating from the indent, and the solid box shows a crack slashing across the lower left quadrant. The middle image is the Raman image. The bright spots are grains where the c-axis is perpendicular to the image (i.e., the computer screen) and the dark regions are have c-axes oriented in the plane of the computer screen. The bright regions along the crack in the solid box are indicative of ferroelastic switching. In the center of the solid box, some faint banding can be seen, which is also characteristic of ferroelastic switching. The lower image shows the banding feature in more detail.
The paper goes into a fair amount of detail regarding Raman intensities and the details of mapping them and how the Raman technique was successfully applied to both load scenarios. The authors conclude that, indeed, the "results provide the first step toward the in situ observation of ferroelastic domain formation" for tetragonal zirconia-based materials. Like a GPS, it can guide researchers in real time to the part of the material where the action is, but different tools are needed for up-close characterization.
Back to Previous Page
3 Responses to Raman spectroscopy used like a GPS to map toughening in zirconia
We all know that Raman spectroscopy is a great tool in science and use in many science activities. That is why i am not surprise that they also use Raman spectroscopy in toughening of zirconias. This is so impressive!
Raman spectroscopy is always be a useful tool to detect something when it becomes to science. But i do not think that toughening of zirconias can also do by Raman spectroscopy. Amazing!
I will right away take hold of your rss feed as I can not in finding your email subscription link or newsletter service. Do you've any? Kindly permit me recognize so that I could subscribe. Thanks.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


text:
How rude?!
Kristen Doute is taking a big swing at her former friend and Vanderpump Rules co-star Schena Marie during a new interview with Life & Style.
In the interview, Kristen calls out Scheana for taking Stassi Schroeder's anorexic comments out of context and making them into a bigger deal than necessary.
"Very frustrating," Kristen says about filming the season 5 reunion.
Kristen adds that she takes major issue with Scheana now claiming she struggled with anorexia.
"It infuriates me that Scheana is making it a thing," Kristen explained.
Following part one of the VPR reunion, Scheana revealed that she struggled with an eating disorder in college and claims that Stassi's comments about her weight really affected her.
"I was 20 years old. I was going to be moving out to Hollywood. I wanted to be an actress. Thin was in 11 years ago," Scheana previously told The Daily Dish podcast. "Kim Kardashian was not a thing. It wasn't cool to have a big butt. For me, I was just like, 'I don't want to work out, so the only way I know how to get skinny is to stop eating.'I Remember stepping on the scale the day of my college graduation, and I was 102. I was like, 'Yes, I'm almost under 100.' I was proud of myself."
While I don't doubt Scheana's struggle with anorexia, I have to agree with Kristen that it's being made a thing because it's convenient and makes Scheana look like the victim yet again. If Stassi's comment hurt Scheana, she should have said something at the time and not wait almost a year to reveal that it hurt her because she struggled with anorexia in the past. Stassi was joking with Scheana and had no malicious intent in her comment unlike when Lala called Stassi and Katie fat. Calling someone too skinny is NOT the same as calling someone fat especially when we live in a society that glorifies thinness. As for Kristen, it seems she's frustrated it's being made into a big deal when it doesn't have to be at all.
Thoughts on Kristen's comment? Do you think Scheana made her past eating disorder a thing for attention? Sound off about this ongoing drama below!
Follow AllAboutTRH On Instagram.
Follow AllAboutTRH On Twitter.
Like AllAboutTRH On Facebook.

subset: commoncrawl


text: The difference between a skateboard park and a skate plaza is that the former typically has ramps, bowls, half-pipes and pyramids. A skate plaza is designed for "street skating" by incorporating urban terrain elements such as benches, rails and ledges. Through the use of landscaping and art, a skate plaza may resemble a town public square which allowed it to become a multi-use park which is aesthetically pleasing. The Skate plaza is located across from Candy Cane Park, near the Saskatchewan Science Centre.


text:
Editing Non-English Text
When editing PDFs written in various different languages please remember the following:
- hyphenation will only work if the correct language is chosen using the File > Preferences... menu option. If the correct language is not available, it may be better to disable hyphenation.
- spell check requires the correct language to be specified using the File > Preferences... menu.
- Infix only supports editing of text read left-to-right. This means editing of Arabic and Hebrew texts is not supported.
Double Byte Support
Infix fully supports copy/paste of double-byte characters.
A double-byte character can be typed directly by holding down Alt while entering the decimal value of the character using the numeric keypad (ensure that 'NumLock' is lit on your keyboard). The character will be inserted when you release the Alt key.
For example: Alt+0190 = 3/4
(you do not need to type the '+' character)
The character codes can be found by using the Character Map utility in most versions of Microsoft Windows.
Display of Double-Byte Characters
When a PDF does not include a required font, Infix substitutes one of its built-in fonts. These fonts cover the standard Latin character sets plus Hiragana, Katakana and a selection of special characters.
If you install the optional Asian Font Pack (available from www.pdfediting.com) the built-in fonts can be extended to include a useful selection of Chinese and Japanese characters.
Characters for which no substitute exists will appear as squares in Infix but may display correctly in other viewers.


text:
Alarming erosion in Russian Arctic
"The coasts of the Vize Island were being eroded before too, it is a natural process. However, in 1950's explorers observed average rate of coastal retreat about 1.5 m a year. And satellite images from 2009 to 2016 show that in this place the coastline moved back by 74 m. The speed up is very impressive," says Aleynikov.
The rapid changes are associated primarily with the erosion of permafrost coasts by waves. The wave energy is directly related to the number of days in the summer season, when there is open water around the island. An analysis of Landsat satellite images over the past years has revealed an increase in the period of open water due to global warming. The satellite image from July 15, 2016 shows that there is no floating ice around the Vize Island at all.
"Previously it was thought that the greatest rate of destruction of the coast in Russia and in the world is on the New Siberian Islands, which are wearing away 5-15 meters a year, and sometimes - 20 m after a heavy storm. It is likely that on the Vize Island speed of the coast destruction is even higher. It is necessary to continue monitoring," says Oksana Lipka, coordinator of the Climate and Energy Program, WWF Russia.
Warming air temperatures, sea level rise, and a longer ice-free period around the island are all associated with climate change, that is warming the Arctic at a rate twice the global average. The longer ice-free periods are attracting the attention of industry to the Arctic, adding stress to already stressed systems.
"Arctic islands, changing both under human influence and as a result of climate change, require close monitoring," says Ivan Mizin, of WWF Russia's Barents Office, WWF Russia. "Vize Island needs protection, primarily as a year-round habitat of the polar bear, Atlantic walrus and ivory gull. It's at the junction of two seas and connects the populations of these species. We need to understand whether the reduction of the island territory affects these species and to what extent. That is why it is desirable to minimize the human impact here and create a nature reserve."
For more information, contact:
Dmitry Ryabov Press Officer WWF-Russia, Barents Office
Phone: +7-911-808-38-14 email: email@example.com
Photographs/satellite images
Web: panda.org/arctic
About WWF
WWF is one of the world's largest and most respected independent conservation organizations, with almost five million supporters and a global network active in more than 100 countries. WWF's mission is to stop the degradation of the earth's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the world's biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.


text:
KIAWAH ISLAND, S.C. – Martin Kaymer's summer struggles continue.
In a marquee pairing with Tiger Woods and Keegan Bradley, Kaymer's woes were more visible for the world to see in the first two rounds of the PGA Championship. The former world No. 1 shot a pair of 79s and missed the cut.
Kaymer, 27, also missed the cut in last month's British Open. He has now missed three cuts in his last six starts.
"Mentally, it's very, very tough," said Kaymer, who won the PGA Championship at Whistling Straits two years ago. "It is sad and tough to handle, but it is the way it is. I have to fight through it."
Kaymer reigned as No. 1 for eight weeks a little more than a year ago. He has slipped to No. 21.
Not quite comfortable with his game, Kaymer was under a tough test at Kiawah Island's Ocean Course, playing in the spectacle that Woods brings and playing on a brutish Pete Dye design.
Kaymer was asked if that situation conspired to double the challenge of finding his best form again.
"I think it was great," Kaymer said. "You can always learn something if you play with Tiger Woods. It was a very enjoyable two days."
What did Kaymer learn? He said he was impressed with the way Woods managed his way around, with the way Woods controlled his ball flight in every wind direction.


text:
Today we're celebrating National Pizza Day, so come by the office for a slice of the good stuff! We've got a variety of options, but supplies are limited! Come on over. We look forward to seeing everyone who can come! Have a great weekend everyone.
Orion at the Cascades Staff


text:
How to create more efficient call center schedules with Monet WFM Live
Watch how to track key metrics throughout the day and quickly update required and assigned agents instantly, based on surpluses and shortages for each time period of the day with workforce management software from Monet.
Intra-day management of contact center workforce with Monet WFM Live - Transcript
Easily compare planned and actual call activities in real-time
Within the managing module of the Monet workforce management system there is an intraday option that displays up to the minute information on forecast versus actual activities happening within your contact center. As you can see it actually compares many key performance indicators within your center.
Shown here are actual versus forecast for calls, handle time and service levels. Through Monet's integration with your ACD these statistics are updated continuously throughout the day. Also shown to the right is the current required number of agents verse the actual number of agents working. An impressive feature of this dashboard is the ability to calculate an up to the minute cumulative ratio which calculates and displays any trends going on in the center.
Quickly adjust forecast and schedule throughout the day to handle unexpected events in your call center
Based on these trends, the supervisor has the option to adjust the forecast accordingly moving forward. By comparing actual call history for a particular time within the current day the supervisor can see that calls are running about 19% above predicted. If you expect the trend to continue and would like to you can click on the modify forecast button so that from 11 to 3 pm the system will now adjust the forecast applying the actual trends for the day and work times. Once completed new agent requirements would be displayed allowing for proactive changes to the current days schedule to accommodate sudden changes in call volume and call handle times.
These are just a few of the steps a supervisor can take to change the forecast and roster to handle unexpected events in your call center. Next, we will show you how to handle schedule exceptions with Monet WFM Live.
Monet WFM
Monet Metrics
Monet Record
Monet Quality
A More Efficient Call Center in One Minute?
These are just some of the real-world benefits experienced after implementing Monet WFM software.Watch Video


text:
Lady Gaga's Tour of Inclusion
Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.
Email This Story
Lady Gaga released her most personal album to date last year, "Joanne," and just got around to touring a couple of weeks ago at Scottrade after a daring performance at the last Super Bowl. One thing's for sure: Only she can make such a huge venue seem like an intimate setting with her poise and her powerful music.
The album dived into the reality of Lady Gaga: her chronic pain that is expanded visually with the Netflix documentary "Gaga: Five Foot Two," which she explained delved into the moments that she wasn't comfortable in exposing, but agreed that the makers portrayed flawlessly. The album is named after her aunt "Joanne" who died before Gaga was born. The sold-out show already seemed like a hit when the audience members waited outside the venue for 45 minutes before the show started, but their excitement levels never died down.
Lady Gaga finally appeared on stage after no opening act, simply a DJ, to a setting that had tremendous amounts of lighting, platforms by the viewers down in general admission, and a large amount of the audience in crazy costumes from her music videos. Gaga opened with beat-heavy "Diamond Heart," the first song of her newest album, bringing out a large army of dancers onto a moving stage with fire and smoke all around her, highlighting the jewels on her statement-wear for the concert: her glittering pink cowboy hat.
The concert kept getting bigger and bolder with other moving parts like the turning stages that descended from above, the main stage that tilted as the dancers danced—and needless to say—the flashy costumes. The sets continued with ramps that also functioned as screens, lasers that illuminated the venue, and snippets of her music videos from songs that weren't performed. Gaga kept the audience engaged by unapologetically demanding that they stay standing throughout the concert because it's only polite.
Gaga treated her audience to a night filled with twenty songs, all the back-to-back hits, like "Poker Face," "Applause," "Born This Way," "Alejandro," "Telephone" and "Paparazzi." The dancers kept up with her energy with their sharp choreography and eccentric costumes, consisting of sunflower leotards, cowboy boots in "John Wayne," and bright red leather in "Dancin' in Circles," a song that Gaga said brought out the her sexual side.
The ones that she sang from "Joanne" emphasized the need for inclusion, love and support. Gaga took her time when singing through "The Edge of Glory," which was written for her best friend who died of cancer, a song which stripped her down to tears as she performed it. She said that it is during times like these that one needs to know that they're not alone. The performance was raw, and it exposed her voice and her piano, as she took time away from her five-piece pop band. She fought and came back strong with her fearless "Born This Way," where she sang and rocked her head back and forth directly into the camera, giving her audience a sense of perseverance.
Lady Gaga's "Joanne" world tour was her message to the world that she is reaching out to support her fans who are going through struggles in their lives right now. Through her music she sincerely assures that she will be there for them as seen in her song "Come to Mama," signifying her support to the LGBTQ community.
Throughout the concert, she singled out audience members who wore bling on their pink jackets and the pink cowboy hat from her album cover and repeatedly pointed and said "I love that" and "I see you." Audience members left Scottrade ardently emotional with a resounding sound of her powerful music.


text:
"I've come to believe that all my past failure and frustrations were actually laying the foundation for the understandings that have created the new level of living I now enjoy."
Crude Oil is bullish with two channels this evening, both of which telling us to look for buying opportunities at prior support levels on the chart, with a potential target going back to the $50 round number tomorrow.
S&P looks bullish at first, and it may end up that way tomorrow, but the buyers need to show us some PROOF before we look for buying opportunities, and until then, we're keeping our eye on a re-test of today's low.
Gold is sideways and range-bound this evening, right on top of the prior month high, making our plan simple tomorrow; buy the low, sell the high, and avoid the middle.
Euro is bearish and trying to re-test today's low, but three levels of support, and a key trend-line are telling us to wait for a better selling-opportunities with a 'trap high' tomorrow.
FDAX is bearish and trying to re-test today's low, but we have a support trend-line getting in our way, so the plan is to look for selling-opportunities up at a key resistance level waiting overhead.
Crude Oil Trading Strategy
Crude Oil is bullish with a Spike & Channel, sitting on top of the prior week high, which is a price-magnet as we go into Friday's session. We have two channels to consider for tomorrow, both telling us to look for buying opportunities down at support levels below us. The Spike & Channel tells us to look for traps at prior swing-lows, and the multi-tiered channel tells us to look for buying opportunities at the lows. Both of these channels give us a target back up at the high, and potentially a re-test of the $50 round number as we finish the month tomorrow.
E-Mini S&P Trading Strategy
E-Mini S&P is trying to turn bullish, but they buyers haven't been able to hold a pullback yet, so we need to wait for more confirmation. The bears got what they were looking for from last night's newsletter, an opportunity to sell high and re-test the low. This big short-covering-rally over lunch was an attractive buying opportunity for the bulls, but they appear to be struggling to push through the high and take control. This market is a complete toss-up at this point, with the bears getting a slight edge and looking for a re-test of the low.
Gold Trading Strategy
Gold is sideways and trading inside a range, just a few ticks above the prior month high, which has been acting as a price-magnet as we finish up the month of April. The market appears to be neutral at this point, so the plan for tomorrow is to buy the low, sell the high, avoid the middle and focus on failures until we see a successful breakout-pullback and a new trend tomorrow.
Euro Trading Strategy
Euro is bearish and trying to re-test today's low, but the measured-move and prior day low appear to be standing in the way. The bears have control, and the goal is to 'sell high', so the plan is to use this support trend-line as resistance and look for a 'trap high' for an opportunity to finish the move without forcing the trade at these lows. We should also keep an eye on the prior month high, which was tested earlier today. If the bulls can give us some strength, we can look for buying opportunities on the way back to the highs tomorrow.
FDAX Trading Strategy
FDAX is bearish and trying to re-test today's low, but this rising support level appears to be keeping the sellers from finishing the job. One thing that stands out on this chart is the recent bear channel coming off the high; the sellers never got the opportunity to 'sell high' after the market turned down again, so the plan is to look for selling-opportunities up at the highs of the range, which may end up becoming a triangle tomorrow as well.
Learn the Strategy & Join the Trade Room; Click here to register for the Free Trial


text:
I'm pleased to welcome Antoinette into this exceptional group of professional women. Her knowledge and experience in her industry are valuable assets to her company and community.
Garden City, NY (PRWEB) February 16, 2016
The National Association of Professional Women (NAPW) honors Antoinette Copeland as a 2015-2016 inductee into its VIP Woman of the Year Circle. She is recognized with this prestigious distinction for leadership in business. NAPW is the nation's leading networking organization exclusively for professional women, boasting more than 850,000 members and over 200 operating Local Chapters.
"I'm pleased to welcome Antoinette into this exceptional group of professional women," said NAPW President Star Jones. "Her knowledge and experience in her industry are valuable assets to her company and community."
Self-motivated, results oriented and driven to succeed, Antoinette Copeland is a seasoned professional who has constantly set her goals to keep pace with her highest aspirations for personal excellence. Throughout her career, she has exhibited exemplary teamwork, expertise, integrity and dedication.
Ms. Copeland is Community Director at Bracher Senior Housing FPI Management, Inc., which specializes in attending to senior needs. Her skills and areas of expertise include management, scheduling, qualifying candidates, maintaining properties and customer service. She received her Associate's degree in Business from CDC – San Francisco.
When not working, Ms. Copeland is drawn to and passionate about charitable organizations such as her local church and homeless shelter.
Ms. Copeland's current position within Bracher Senior Housing FPI Management, Inc., fully utilizes the dedication and aspirations for success that have earned her this recognition from the National Association of Professional Women. She is honored as an inspiration and a leader in her industry.
About NAPW
NAPW's mission is to provide an exclusive, highly advanced networking forum to successful women executives, professionals and entrepreneurs where they can aspire, connect and achieve. Through innovative resources, unique tools and progressive benefits, professional women interact, exchange ideas, advance their knowledge and empower each other.


text:
Know more about this business than we do? Cool! Please submit any corrections or missing details you may have.Help us make it right
Be the first NOLA.com user to add photos or videos of Floyd's Marley Marina
Floyd's is a great place to go. They have a band every Sun afternoon from 5-9. Drinks are pretty reasonable. Only downfall is the floor is a little rough. Right on the intercoastal waterway over looking the water. Summertime brings lots of people out for boating and skiing. Very friendly bartendars. I worked there as a bartendar for 12 yrs and still love to go there. Great place to meet new...
Floyd's Marley Marina is located at 7675 Choctaw Rd, Brusly, LA. This business specializes in Bars, Pubs, & Clubs.
Hidden Valley Software & CMPTR is located at 3428 Crestview Way, Napa, CA. This location is in the Browns Valley neighborhood. This business specializes in Computer Software.


text:
Mistress Carmen had imagined her vacation in Thailand rather differently: With her binoculars she discovered a bare-assed tourist's ass in the open sea just as she arrived at her exclusively reserved private beach. So after a spontaneous "sea cucumber" attack on the high sea, she deals with this troublemaker at her beach house. An underwater enema and a thick cane already await this tourist's brown eye crack. She tunes the slave prostate onto "vacation mode" by hand and foot and a proper pegging completes the exclusive "All Inclusive" program. The vacation dildo pleases Carmen afterwards while she hardens the soft parts of the tourist with an exclusive underwater foot massage. The experiment culminates in an orgiastic underwater pegging. With unparalleled underwater scenes that have never been seen as such before, Carmen Rivera Entertainment at its best!» Hundreads of xxx Femdom clips only here!!! «
Added July 10, 2018 at 9:28 am
Category: HD
No comments on "Anale Urlaubsgrube Von Der Herrin"
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
Related videos


text:
Actually I think that I and very lucky that I have such a beautiful wife! I never met someone that sexually attractive as she is and luckily she is very open minded so I have the chance to show her naked body to everyone. What are your thoughts about my sexy goddess?
Most beautiful wife ever
by sim on 10. Sep, 2010 in Amateur hot videos, Posts from blog visitors
Newest amateur videos & photos
8 Responses to "Most beautiful wife ever"
LON (PINAY) 12. Oct, 2010 at 8:07 am #
very beautiful,would be even hotter you watch her fucking your friends
mop 19. Oct, 2010 at 12:47 am #
ur ass needs sucked
steve 30. Dec, 2010 at 11:18 pm #
How can you be that lucky. I want to swap with my wife for a while.
Bruce 03. Jan, 2011 at 8:15 am #
Seductive and sultry!
john 26. Aug, 2011 at 12:25 am #
john from London,I will love to have a wild moments wh.. you..I love to make you have orgazum..sqirting..:-)..call me baby..am nice looking guy..I love to make you feel all pleasure
paolo 24. Mar, 2012 at 2:34 am #
she are ready for a black cock
m 03. Apr, 2012 at 7:45 am #
i like fuck her ass and u watch me
Elizabethann12569 23. Sep, 2012 at 7:03 am #
Is this hot bitch ready for a lesbian encounter? She is beautiful, i would love to see what her pussy looks like!


text:
Sign In | Register
Hi! Here are the latest Insider stories.
The future of software and cloud is autonomous. Everyone can benefit from more autonomy in their software including how data is managed and monetized. This session will talk about how the world is changing to incorporate AI and machine learning empowering business users to app developers to DBAs and IT to benefit from this changing dynamics led by Oracle. Join us and learn more about your Autonomous Future!


text:
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
IWSG Wednesday: November Rain
Happy Insecure Writer's Support Group Wednesday. Thank you again to Alex J. Cavanaugh, the creator of the group. The first Wednesday of every month is dedicated to this group of supportive writers. If it's something you're not familiar with, then please click on Alex's link above for more information and to sign up!
I've finally begun writing again, but it's slow going. Starting is always the hardest thing for me, getting back into the rhythm of daily writing. One week would go by...then two...then three...and I'd still have nothing written down. I can now say that is no longer the case, but I'm far from a novel length. I had hoped to finish my first draft by year's end, but my schedule is shot to hell at this point. Though I'm trying not to be discouraged. I gave myself a deadline, but it isn't an end-of-the-world deadline. As long as I keep working toward my goal, I'll eventually get there.
Which leads me to my plan for finishing my YA series. I plan on releasing the last two books in quick succession. It's important to me to get this series finished so I can begin something new. I'll do some promotion once they're both ready to come out. With my current workload, I don't have the time to write and promote...my 1-2 hours a day doesn't stretch nearly as far as I'd like. It's frustrating, and even more frustrating when that frustration creeps into my writing time and undermines my productivity. All I can do is try to do better tomorrow. Tomorrow is another chance with a clean slate.
Well, it is November and I know many of you have begun your NaNo projects. 50,000 words in a month is my Everest! One day I'll reach it. Good luck to all of you taking the challenge. I'll continue plugging away to increase my word count and trying not to get distracted by too many holiday treats.
5 comments:
Fortunately you can set your own timetable for your releases.ReplyDelete
Putting the last two books out close to each other is a good idea. You'll have more momentum.
Time is definitely a limited resource for most writers so I hear you on that.ReplyDelete
I like your post title- reminded me of that old Guns N' Roses song.
It sounds like you have a great plan and a good attitude. It's always difficult to go back after a long break, but just keep at it and eventually you'll be back in the groove. Best of luck!ReplyDelete
Michael! My birthday buddy! I miss you!!!ReplyDelete
I've been in a dry spell myself… really been struggling to find motivation to write. I think it's going to get better though. I hope. So I get it. I soooo get it. Keep pushing. HUGS.
It seems like forever I've been by here. Apologies! Not that it's an excuse, but blogging has definitely taken the bumper while I've been revising. I'm sure you understand. :) Well, I just posted December's IWSG post and saw you commented back in November! Wishing you all the best with your writing, Michael!!ReplyDelete


text:
Daily Fantasy Contest Types
50/50 and Double Ups
50/50's are a great way to build your bankroll. In these contests, the top 50% of entries win. The bottom 50% lose. If 100 people enter a 50/50, you just have to finish 50th or higher. It does not matter if you get 1st or 50th. You will usually receive 1.8 times your entry fee. So if you enter a $1 contest, you will win $1.80.
Double Ups are very similar. Here, it's around the top 45% that win and double their money. Enter a $1 contest, win $2.
Head to Head
You play against 1 other person. Winner gets 1.8x the entry fee. Enter $1, get $1.80.
The goal in these games are to build the team with a very high "floor". Meaning that even on their down games they are still producing points. You want a very consistent team. Finding the best value is key. We don't care about how highly owned by other teams the players are. If we feel it's the right play, the chalk (obvious play) is perfectly fine. If 70% of entrants have a chalk player with a great game, you need that player.
It's good to play a mix of 50/50's and Head to Heads. Playing all 50/50s can be risky, since if you finish 56th out of 100, you lose in all 50/50s you entered. With H2Hs, if your opponent has a weak game, you still win. Play a bunch of $1 and $2 Head to Heads instead of one $20 matchup. This minimizes your risk.
Triple Ups, Quintuple Ups, etc…
This is where the top ⅓, top ⅕, and so on, win. You are winning 3x and 5x your entry fee. These have more risk, and more reward, than 50/50s. More upside from your team is needed. We need to adjust our rosters accordingly.
Guaranteed Prize Pool (GPPs)
You PLAY to WIN the GAME! This is the reason most people start playing DFS. We see the commercials of people winning millions of dollars and we get after it! Depending on size and entry fee, tournament winners receive anywhere from $50, to $5,000,000. Typically, the top 20% of entries get paid. With prizes growing from the 20% spot, up to 1st place. These games have a lot more risk, so we're looking to maximize our "ceiling". We want as much upside and fantasy goodness as possible.
Qualifiers / Satellites
These work very much like GPPs, but instead of getting paid, you win a ticket into a higher entry fee tournament. These have the risk of GPPs, but can get players with smaller bankrolls into larger tourneys with bigger prize pools.
These are free to play contests. They are a great way for beginners to practice and learn the game. Also, it actually pays out money or tickets! A very small amount of entries win. But it's free!
Find me on Twitter


text:
Location: Capri Drive-In, Coldwater, Michigan
Transportation: '61 Impala
Purpose: For the fun of it.
The movies playing that evening were not what we'd normally go to a theater to see.
But this trip wasn't about the movie.
It was about taking this car on a two-hours-one-way road trip to this drive-in.
And we had a fabulous time.


text:
Students who have completed two years of university education outside France, and also their upper secondary education certificate outside of France should apply through the Pre-Master Admission Test (PMAT).
Students who have completed the French Classes-Preparatoires should apply through the ESCP Europe Prépas Admission Test.
Students who successfully complete the Pre-Master year automatically join the Master in Management programme, without having to go through any further admission procedures. Pre-Master year studies are offered in Paris in French and Turin in English.
We recommend candidates not to be older than 26 during the application year.
Raphaël COULHON
Class of 2015
Students from French preparatory classes, like me, begin their studies in Paris or Turin before leaving to study on the other European campuses of the School. But you already feel elsewhere: 24% of European students (excluding France) and 31% from other continents (China, Africa, India ...). It made me discover new ways of thinking. You really learn to live and work with people from different cultures.
All courses are carried out in French. For more details, please visit the page in French.


text:
This is the perfect staple piece to your wardrobe. Comfortable and can be perfect for any event.
Paired with some heels and leather pants the perfect night time outfit or our purity top can look just as beautiful as a casual top with jeans or our reason or strength pants. The perfect purple for Autumn. Butter georgette fabric.
This product hasn't received any reviews yet. Be the first to review this product!


text:
- All Year Round.
Opening Hours:
- Sunday - Thursday: 19:00 to 02:00.
- Friday + Saturday: 19:00 to 03:00.
Casa Rosso Address:
- Oudezijds Achterburgwal 106-108.
Ticket Types:
- Adult tickets aged 18+ years.
About Casa Rosso:
First opened in the 1960s as a venue for the screening of adult films, Casa Rosso has evolved over the decades into one of the Red Light District's most iconic nightlife spots.
Each day it hosts a variety of erotic shows and sensual performances aimed at mature adult audiences. These take place in a large, air-conditioned building featuring all the comforts one would expect in a modern club: fully-stocked bar, viewing balconies and a lounge with comfy red velvet sofas.
Shows are repeated several times throughout the night and leave little to the imagination. They include stripteases, soft S&M displays and the signature 'banana' show.
What sets Casa Rosso apart from smaller venues is its organised service and experienced staff (showmen and women included). This creates a fun, laid-back atmosphere cracking with intimacy and excitement.
Casa Rosso's live shows are ideal for hen and stag party revellers who're looking to give the betrothed a final cheeky taste of freedom. Expect plenty of audience interaction and even the odd invitation to participate on-stage. Our tickets include fast-track entry and (if selected) 2 drinks of your choice.


text:
The Hans Gruber Problem/
Despite multiple wonderful and stand-out roles, a problem some actors face when their mannerisms will forever be linked to one specific character.
Origin: Alan Rickman's unforgettable performance in Die Hard as Hans Gruber still overshadows virtually every performance he's been in since. He was obviously great in the Harry Potter films and in Sweeney Todd, but he still runs into the Hans Gruber problem.
Usage: I don't care if Robin Williams won an Oscar for Good Will Hunting. He still runs into the Hans Gruber problem with the Genie in Aladdin.
First Used: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street


text:
KUHN mounted sprayers combine precision and ease of use while requiring little investment. They can be fitted with steel or aluminium booms featuring manual or hydraulic folding.
• OPTIS 300-1200 L• OMNIS 600-1200 L• DELTIS 800-1200 L• ALTIS 1300-2000 L(Call for best discounted prices.)
KUHN trailed sprayers provide a new idea of balance: a well equipped sprayer with aluminium booms, polyester tank and CAN BUS regulation for ease of use and optimum quality spraying. Their numerous equipment possibilities combined with the impeccable boom balance make it easier to use the sprayer.
• ATLANTIQUE 2400-3200 L• GRAND LARGE 2400-5000 L• METRIS 3200-4100 L• OCEANIS 4500-7700 L(Call for best discounted prices.)
Through the performance and quality of products and services
We ensure the quality of each product delivered to the farmer : rigorous choice of materials and components, continuous improvement of our organisation, quality control of machinery before dispatch, process management, a controlled service level.
With its reliable, quality products and services, KUHN's reputation is not due to chance. We work at it daily.
KUHN's commitment is to make a DIFFERENCE for you.
Through the power of innovation and creativity
Listening to the demands of farmers is the driving force of innovation at KUHN. We make modern technology available to farmers.
We measure customer satisfaction by strict criteria. The same principles of quality and satisfaction apply to our products supplied world-wide.
© 2018 - Robertsons Of Tain Ltd. All rights reserved.
Designed by: Software Scotland Ltd.


text:
Italy's head coach, Giampiero Ventura has slammed the display of his side in the 1-1 draw against Macedonia.
Spain secured qualification to Russia, meaning Italy will have to wait till the second round of qualifying to earn their ticket.
Chiellini scored the only goal for Italy, with a poor second half display , seeing the Azzurri's concede an equaliser and Ventura believes if they play like that, they will struggle in the playoffs.
He told reporters: "If we play like we did in the second half then we will struggle to get through the play-offs. It doesn't take a coach to realise that.
"If from here to the play-offs we can add a few more players who actually play [at club level], but evidently those are two different situations.
"I think the praise was exaggerated before and the criticism is exaggerated now. I had moments that were positive and negative, like all coaches.
"In the last six minutes, Leonardo Bonucci moved up to act as a centre-forward because the team wanted a victory. In the second half we weren't as aggressive, but that doesn't mean we lacked confidence.
"Macedonia lost only one game in 2017 and it was 2-1 to Spain, and in the 95th minute they could've equalised. We're not talking about Spain or Germany, but they are still a good side."


text:
GCC web hosting is one of the leading providers of hosting services in UAE. We offer varied domain registration & web hosting solutions to our clients at reasonable prices.
We offer:
Domain services acts as a backbone for the long-term standing of any website. The process of domain selection is very difficult because people don't know from where to find the ideal domain hosting? In these days the trend of domain purchasing has been increased whether this is blog or websites you can get it from Domain Hosting Companies in UAE. Such companies deal with customers web-hosting issues.
GCCWebHosting is a leading domain and web hosting company in Dubai. We are specialized in providing host of domain comprising all necessary features including domain registering to providing the correct email address with your domain name. Our UAE hosting services includes all privacy features, web hosting and other services at affordable rates. In our package of Hosting in UAE we include dedicated IP addresses, complete technical support, site creation tools, windows hosting and linux hosting.
We have team of experts who provide UAE Hosting service by having special focus upon some elements such as domain transfer services, domain name management, domain name registration and domain search. At GCCWebHosting customers can also enjoy international domains and sub domain to clients to benefit their need of Domain Hosting in UAE. Apart this we also assist to setup innumerable domains under a single account.
It doesn't matter what problem you are facing with your domain our professional team can support you from all aspects. We can serve you with online and onsite support facilities so may you can stick with your preferred. A service of Hosting in UAE is now easier as we are available for you. Just need to follow a process to have access to our domain-hosting experts.
In case you have your own website then we can also provide you with SEO as well as e-marketing services to help you in drawing excellent visitor traffic to the site. These services are also provided to customers who are in Sharjah, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Ajman & many other places.


text:
LipoQuick diet pill review
LipoQuick Maximum Burn is yet another diet pill that tries to attract you as a consumer into buying it. The main slogan "You can lose as much as 10 lbs a week with LipoQuick" is pretty unrealistic. In our opinion the most realistic expectation from a diet pill in terms of weekly weight loss rate is 3-4 lbs per week.
LipoQuick ingredients
All the ingredients are divided into several groups or matrixes as they call them:
- Thermogenic Matrix (235mg) – Combination of Caffeine, Cayenne Pepper, Metabromine and Black pepper extract.
- Anti-Oxidant Matrix (150mg) – Combo of various anti-oxidant ingredients including: resveratrol, blackberry, blueberry, acai etc.
- Maximum Fat Burning Matrix (227mg) – Group of so called fat burning compounds with Green Tea being praised as the leading fat burner ingredient here. Mind you, green tea can aid in weight loss, but it hasn't been proven to actually burn fat.
Also inside LipoQuick there's Rasberi K included (75mg)
LipoQuick side effects
Judging by the ingredient list, consumers can expect mild side effects related to stimulant content present (Caffeine, Green tea).
Where to buy LipoQuick?
On their official website they sell it for $39.95 for 1 month package. As you go for higher packages they also give you free 3-day detox supplement (oh my).
Final word on LipoQuick
We would definitely avoid LipoQuick. This pill looks no different than majority of diet pills on the market. It looks nice on the outside, but on the inside it hardly works.
LipoQuick alternatives
Phen375 is fully synthetic fat burner with ingredients made in an FDA regulated lab. This pharmacy grade fat burner can offer you weight loss rate of 3-4 lbs/week and it doesn't cause any negative side effects. Many dieters worldwide already put their trust into this weight loss supplement.
- Buy lipoquick diet pill
- how much should you lose per month with lipoquick
- lipo quick diet pills
- lipoquick diet pill reviews
- lipoquick diet pill side effects


text:
The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points
Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|2 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|655 times
|Debate No:
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)
if one disclaims knowledge, and prefaces with a "i dont know if your God exists"... then immediately follows up with a "but i dont believe your God exists." then they have made the first portion of their position of null effect. No?
Thats the relationship between knowledge and belief that you overlook. They cannot hold the same place in your mind at the same time. When you say you dont know, you disclaim knowledge. That means you must believe or disbelieve, and there is no evidence either way.
So when an agnostic atheist says, i dont believe there is a god, because there is no evidence. They are really saying "i think there is evidence to be had." If the absence of evidence is your reason to believe something did not happen, then you are assuming that if something happened, there would be evidence! If God existed...there would be evidence... So.. you believe its POSSIBLE to KNOW if GOD exists. Therefore, they are by definition NOT agnostic, by any true sense of the word.
I accept this debate and will do my best to make it enjoyable for everyone involved.
Since Pro did not specify the structure of this debate, I will present my arguments against the resolution before proceeding to rebut Pro's arguments.
The resolution is straightforward: "Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time."
However, I contend that atheists can not only be agnostic, but must be agnostic. I believe that the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
1. The Possibility for Atheists to be Agnostic:
Let's begin by defining the two terms.
According to Atheism .org,
"Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." [1]
According to the Meriam - Webster Online Dictionary,
An agnostic is "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." [2]
Now, comparing these two terms, it becomes clear that there is overlap. This is good news for my position.
The phrases "lack of belief" (atheist) and "a person who does not have a definite belief" are very similar. The only difference is the degree of disbelief. Both groups doubt a supreme deity's existence. But does this mean that one cannot be the other, and vice versa?
Of course not! Here's what Austin Cline, an expert in atheism and agnosticism, says:
"Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure " in other words, they may be an agnostic as well." [3]
Because there is overlap, there exists the possibility for an atheist to be an agnostic, and vice versa. Moreover, some might oscillate between the two positions depending on how they feel on the issue.
2. The Necessity for Atheists to be Agnostic:
No atheist can definitively say that God does not exist. Such a statement would be absolute which, as any honest atheist will admit, is unprovable. After all, it is logically impossible to verify a negative!
However unlikely, God's existence is still granted to be a possibility by leading atheists:
1. Brian Greene has stated that God might exist. [4]
2. Richard Dawkins has stated that he is a "de facto atheist" - meaning that he is slightly agnostic. [5]
3. Sam Harris has stated that he doesn't know everything, that spirituality is possible. [6]
Based on these three forefront atheists, it is certain that agnosticism is not only possible for atheists, but also a necessity in order to be intellectually honest and factually accurate.
3. Refutation of Pro's arguments:
Pro delivered three complex arguments to support his/her case. Let me now dismantle them one by one.
1. "Agnosticism is not the position of 'I don't know.' That's just . . . ignorance. Agnosticism is the position [that] 'it is not possible to know.'"
Well, according to Professor Richard Dawkins' Scale of Religiosity, that claim is decidedly incorrect. There is a spectrum of belief from the theist, to the agnostic, and to the atheist. By definition, agnosticism means - literally - "no knowledge". It is absurd to remove a word from its actual meaning for the sake of convenience. Agnosticism is ignorance. Pro is trying to re-invent an established word. Moreover, professional atheists disagree with Pro Thus, given that Pro offered no sources in
defense of his argument, I claim superior credibility with mine.
2. "If one disclaims knowledge . . . then they have made the first portion of their position of null effect. No?"
First of all, huh? I am utterly confused. I could not follow this incoherent argument.
Secondly, no. Saying "I don't believe in God" does not nullify the statement "I don't know if God exists" because they logically follow as a syllogism. They are by no means contradictory. In fact, as previously established, they are complementary.
Ex. of syllogism:
Major premise: God's existence requires knowledge in order to believe.
Minor premise: I don't know if God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, I do not believe in God.
See? The logic flows perfectly! No problem.
3. "If the absence of evidence is your reason . . . You believe its possible to know if God exists. Therefore, [agnostics] are by definition not agnostic, by any true sense of the word."
Hmmm... This is an original argument. But I think I have a convincing counterargument.
The agnostic and atheist alike doubt that any evidence exists in support of God. Until evidence is presented, it is impossible to know if God exists. This goes against your claim that an "absence of evidence" view means that one has to belief that it is possible to know God. The truth is exactly the opposite. Until evidence is presented, it is impossible to know if God exists.
Thus, agnostics remain agnostics according to the true definition of the word.
Thanks for reading! I look forward to Round 2
[1] http://atheists.org...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] https://www.youtube.com...
First, I would like to contend as the topic of my debate implies, Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive positions. This is why you will find plenty of Agnostics philosophers (whom appear to be Atheists and are heralded as such by their lesser Atheist followers) whom vehemently disown the label "Atheist." Chomsky, Einstein, Hume, Kant and so on.
As I will attempt to demonstrate further, one should be able to gather that Agnostics do not call themselves Atheistic Agnostics, nor do they recognize Agnostic atheists and atheists to truly be agnostic about God. Those who claim the label of Agnosticism, disclaim Atheism (as well as Theism), on the grounds that the BELIEF of atheism is irrational. The Belief that it is unlikely a God exists, given the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. (which is the same thing as what my opponent said his beliefs were. That the possibility is not denied, but deemed unlikely due to the available evidence against and lack of valid evidence for God's existence.) They key difference here, is that the agnostic does not say 'there is no valid evidence." the agnostic claims that the evidence for God would be incomprehensible, should the evidence exist. The agnostic does not claim 'there is no evidence." only that "we do not SEE or UNDERSTAND the evidence, should it exist." In short, the Atheist lies about "NOT knowing" as he proceeds to acknowledge that he would know, if there was anything to know. He says he doesn't know,,, then continues to act like he knows about God's existence when he asks for valid evidence. The Agnostic is honest about not "knowing." as he is acknowledging that knowing requires the ability to RECOGNIZE (not gather) Valid evidence.
Also, please allow me to rectify the narrative by RE-defining the words agnosticism and atheism, more properly, as my opponents proposed definitions seem to carry a bit of Bias (being taken from an atheist website) as well as a lack of distinction (being a one-sentence statement, taken from a random dictionary. The dictionary will also define CAT as 'a feline animal.' And I will attempt to show, a Lion is a Cat but an Atheist is not Agnostic) It should be noted, many dictionaries also define atheism as "the denial or rejection of God's or gods' existence."
An Atheist , contrary to what an Atheist will tell you, is not someone simply "lacking a belief." An Atheist is , in actuality, by definition, by logic, and by any practical means, someone who has specifically "Rejected and continues to willingly and consciously deny any belief in religion, God, gods or any form of higher or supernatural powers whatsoever." To make this contention, it needs to be made absolutely clear what Atheists are actually saying when making such claims about themselves. At face value, to "lack a belief." may seem like a fair and justifiable description for the term Atheist, but I would like to point two problems with this definition.
First, the description "a lack of belief," is ( as my opponent also pointed out and as I mentioned with my "cat the feline animal" analogy), too broad of a description, which would by default INCLUDE agnostics and atheists. Thus, the definition provided, lacks the ability to distinctly tell us How an atheist is different from an Agnostic, if at all. It's a loaded definition, leading the audience to fallacy. Even if both terms were not mutually exclusive, Con must specify for us what is the deciding factor that makes one go from Agnostic to Agnostic Atheist, if they are both people who lack beliefs and they both CLAIM that they do not know... There is little to zero difference between an Agnostic and an Agnostic Atheist. IF we are to accept Con's definitions without regard for clarity, the differentiation between Agnosticism and Atheism utterly fails, and Agnosticism loses its true meaning. Thus, the adjective "agnostic" in the label "agnostic atheist," becomes a mere shell for protecting the atheist's true beliefs about the unknown - which is that they believe it CAN be KNOWN, via evidence ; which is in turn, diametrically opposed to Agnostic philosophy.
The second problem is that Con seems to assert that Atheism is not a belief system. Yet also says that he doesn't know. If he doesn't know, and he doesn't believe... Then What are his thoughts exactly? Atheism is absolutely a system of belief, and just as any other system of belief, it evolves and builds improvements to its constructs over time. When multiple unrelated individuals gather around a unified belief (atheism, theism, agnosticism, democracy, capitalism, Marxism, Socialism), it is by definition and purpose a SYSTEM of BELIEFS. If atheism were not a belief system, Con would not be able to regurgitate famous Atheists to make his point.
Although instinctively, one may assume Atheism is not a belief system, I would beg the audience again not to incline to superficial "instinctive" conclusions about what things are, but rather lean on their intellectual discernment towards truth by using reality and logic as a benchmark for verification, rather than appealing to authorities.
Further, Atheism is the rejection of all claims regarding God, gods or any claims made by any religion. Their rejection of such claims may inevitably result in a lack of belief in such claims, but their rejection of the belief itself, must be based on their own BELIEF that the claim is wrong. Less, the Atheist is claiming to KNOW the theist's beliefs are wrong, and therefore worthy of rejection. Whichever the case, the atheist ideology is ironically opposed to itself, and to remain intellectually honest about the true position of an atheist, one must admit (as my opponent did) that all people are agnostic by nature and the atheist CANNOT KNOW if the theist's claims are wrong. So it's inevitable and logical to conclude that Atheism is a belief, not a lack of it, and it is shared by many, to create a systematic set of beliefs to adhere to, such as the belief and requirement of scientific evidence to justify any of their other beliefs.
Finally if Atheism is the rejection of ALL claims regarding God, including the claim that "a god of ANY kind exists" it IS, by necessity, a rejection of belief in God or ANY kind of god. The moment an Atheist decides that ANY god claim is worthy of suspension of judgement, they would not be able to reject said claim, because rejection is judgement, not the suspension of it, and then that atheist would in effect no longer be an atheist. He would be Agnostic. T
Con's proposed definition of "Agnosticism" is also suspect, at best. Agnosticism is not simply lacking a "definite" belief in God, gods or religion." If that definition were to justify the true meaning of Agnosticism, then Con is claiming that Agnosticism is nothing but a FORM of atheism.
Agnosticism is defined, high and low, anywhere you look, dictionary or wiki, as the position that "it CANNOT be known or proven that God , a god, or gods exist." Plenty of Atheists will hide their true position by falsely assuming the ideology of an agnostic. An agnostic atheist claims that they "do not believe, because there is no evidence to prove God." In contrast, an agnostic claims they "do not KNOW, because there is no evidence to prove God." These two positions are quite different, but easily confused. The lack of evidence is not evidence at all, for the Agnostic, and the agnostic cannot make the claim of belief. As I mentioned, but my opponent missed, knowledge is a prerequisite for belief. if one claims to believe or disbelieve, he/she also claims knowledge. Just as people are by necessity agnostic, ppl are by necessity rational. It does not mean the knowledge is true, only that it supports the belief of the individual, as they are necessarily rational.
As such, if you must know something to believe or disbelieve...Atheists cannot be agnostic
1. Introduction:
Perhaps, in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive. But that is no longer the case. Now, especially in the twenty-first century, the two categories are not completely separated from each other. Instead, they overlap like two links in a chain.
2. Clarification
As a result of this analogy, there are now at least three categories:
1. Absolute atheist: "It is absolutely impossible for God to exist. Therefore, I do not believe."
2. Agnostic atheist: "There is no evidence to verify the existence of God. Therefore, I do not believe."
3. Absolute agnostic: "It is absolutely impossible to know if God exists. Therefore, I do not believe."
Categories 1 and 3 represent the extremes. However, category 2 is a compromise of both extremes. Category 2 is the overlap.
Thus, agnosticism and atheism are no longer mutually exclusive.
3. Refutations:
There are five points that Pro raised that I would like to attempt to discredit.
1. "Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive."
First of all, where are Pro's sources? So far, Pro has provided no evidence in support of his claims. (see refutation 5 below)
Secondly, Dr. Richard Dawkins' "Scale of Religiosity" is now only a reasonable model of human deistic belief, but it is also a widely accepted one as well. The "Scale of Religiosity" proves that there is overlap between agnosticism and atheism. Dr. Dawkins is a known atheist and scholar; he is a much more credible authority than Pro.
2. "Agnostics do not call themselves Atheistic Agnostics..."
Of course not! I invented the term to easily convey my argument in this debate. Agnostics call themselves agnostics and atheists call themselves atheists, but their titles do not necessarily solidify their stances. Just as Republican and Democrats disagree on matters within their own parties, so agnostics and atheists may disagree as well.
3. "...my [opponent's] proposed definitions seem to carry a bit of Bias (being taken from an atheist website) ..."
First and foremost, why is "bias" capitalized? Gasp! The rules of grammar have been broken!
Secondly, why is it wrong for me to define "atheism" according to how real-life atheists define themselves? If anything, this is the right bias. Would it be better if I used God's definition of "atheism" instead (i.e. heathen who will burn in Hell)?
4. "An Atheist, contrary to what an Atheist will tell you, is not someone simply 'lacking a belief' ..."
Geez, what's up with the inappropriate capitalization? Did you write your response in a hurry? That would explain why your arguments are haphazard, to put it kindly.
So, you cannot trust an atheist to tell you what he/she believes or, in this case, does not believe in? That is absurd. I feel like I should have to prove how absurd your argument is, but I will do it anyway.
Imagine if you tried to order a burger at a restraint and the cashier told you that wasn't really what you wanted. The cashier is not a psychic; the cashier is a fool.
In the same way, Pro is trying to tell atheists what they disbelieve in. That, my friend, is bad form. That is a manipulation of the facts. You cannot do that because, for starters, you aren't them!
If you were them, you'd know you're wrong.
5. "I would beg the audience ... to ... lean on their intellectual discernment...by using [logic]... [and not] appealing to authorities."
If Pro's arguments were logical, surely someone out there agrees with his/her viewpoint. Authorities provide additional support to logical arguments; they tend to make them more credible, especially if the source is reputable. Logic is the bare minimum for rational debate. I have gone the proverbial "extra mile" in researching and citing sources. There is no way in heck that I am going down to Pro's level. Let Pro find some sources and catch up if he/she can.
Having dismissed Pro's arguments, I advance to my conclusion.
4. Conclusion.
I have not covered everything that Pro raised because, honestly, most of it is repetitive and unpersuasive.
Here's the paramount point that secures me the win:
THIS debate is impossible for Pro to win because he must absolutely prove that there is no middle-ground between agnosticism and atheism. Pro must prove that the two are irreconcilable. But given the obvious overlap between the two, Pro immediately fails his goal. Pro's resolution is indefensible.
Thank you. I await Pro in the third round.
Con has already conceded to my resolution by acknowledging "...in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive." Con argues that because times change, so do the meaning of words and their application. Although we see this in some words.. like "f*g" or "dope," it would be a false categorization and a fallacy to assume that the meaning of Agnosticism and Atheism has changed as well. As we all know, these words have not necessarily changed in how we use them. Only recently, certain atheists that recognize their own irrationality have begun adopting the term 'agnostic' to assuage their irreconcilable belief, which was explained in Round 2.
Con unwittingly admits this by defining Agnostic incorrectly, once again, demonstrating his own misconception about what "agnosticism" even is. He claims an absolute agnostic is part of an atheist spectrum of beliefs. He AGAIN miscategorizes agnosticism as a subset of Atheism, obfuscating the actual meaning of Agnosticism, to suit his own agendas, even after he admits "...in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive."
Con believes 'Absolute agnostic is defined as "It is absolutely impossible to know if God exists. Therefore, I do not believe."' This is obviously false categorization of Agnosticism, as I have aforementioned that Agnosticism, in its original sense, is the suspension of belief and disbelief altogether. The correct position would be "It is absolutely impossible to know if God exists. Therefore, I do not believe or disbelieve."
It must be noted, that my logical explanations (being haphazard) were 'dismissed' and not 'challenged' by my opponent. He did not attempt to explain why my logic was wrong, but instead utilized character assassination and a repetition of his beliefs. I will now begin to demonstrate, using LOGIC, that my opponents arguments are not only illogical, but employs textbook critical thinking fallacies one after another to demonstrate his point. Shall we count the ways? And to close, I will reconfirm that my argument is not only valid and sound, but absolutely true.
Of the 5 points raised by Con, he does not provide a single logical or rational explanation for his position. Instead, Con relies on petty ad hominems, appeals to authority, false analogies and categorizations, along with arguments from ignorance to support his position. If Con is unable to provide any logical reasoning for his position, his position is without logic and reason.
Point 1 : ". Dr. Dawkins is a known atheist and scholar; he is a much more credible authority than Pro." An appeal to authority fallacy. Further Dawkins is an Atheist, whom would obviously concur with Con's contention. Setting forth a biased cheerleader, as an intellectual or unbiased authority on the matter is disingenuous, and a fallacious argument that should be outwardly visible to anyone trained in critical thinking.
Point 2: "Just as Republican and Democrats disagree on matters within their own parties, so agnostics and atheists may disagree as well." Another false categorization on part of Con. The ideologies of Atheism and Agnosticism are singular beliefs based on a singular concept. Political affiliations and respective beliefs are in regard to multiple areas of life. Sure Republicans disagree with other republicans about life, or specific policies, why not? Republicans do not disagree with each other about what being a Republican means in essence - which is conservatism and accountability. Neither do Republicans decide that, since their party is found wanting, they should start calling themselves Democratic Republicans. What is more, Republicans cannot be Democrats at the same time.
Point 3: Ad Hominem. Secondly, IF my contention is that Atheists are incorrectly defining themselves, whether it is out of genuine ignorance or intellectual dishonesty is besides the point. If I say atheists have confused the notion of Agnosticism , and falsely placed it upon themselves while changing the definition of Atheism, whether they did it knowingly or unknowingly, they are still falsely defining themselves. If an atheist claims (as Con did) that atheism is a 'lack of belief,' they do not do justice to their own beliefs and actions which is the active rejection of all God claims. (as explained in round 2, and yet to be refuted using logic from my opponent.) It is wrong to accept the superficial definition of atheism from an atheist, if the Atheist consistently LIES about his BELIEFS. Such as the claim that he only believes what he knows. And Con's argument from ignorance is not a refutation to my argument that Atheists have incorrectly defined themselves as being a "lack of belief." As seen in the 3 definitions of Atheism provided, they are all forms of belief. The only 'lack of belief' is agnosticism.
Point 4: False Analogies. Ad hominems. etc. An atheist is not 'lack of belief.' a lack of belief also implies a lack of disbelief. The prefix "dis" meaning opposed, not "without." So a disbelieving something,,,is an opposing belief, not suspending judgement or a lack of it, as atheists would have you believe. A lack of belief also implies that belief is that status quo. But no atheist can ever attempt to minimize their "lack" of belief. The moment they do, and begin to refrain from saying they "disbelieve" , then they become agnostic by virtue of their own words. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The fast food burger analogy does not take into account that atheists willingly lie about their position when saying they are "agnostic" or "lacking belief.". Imagine that you went a restaurant and asked for a burger.The waiter gives u a chicken burger and told you it was the same thing. And that a chicken burger could also be hamburger and both are , in essence, burgers. I find this analogy more effective and I would immediately demand a refund. I suppose Con would be forced to accept the waiter's logic and see the chicken burger as true hamburger. Since, Chickens and Burgers are not mutually exclusive.
Con cannot tell someone they are using "bad form," for laying out logical explanations for why a claim such as "Atheism is a lack of belief." is a FALSE claim. If an American says America is a peace-loving country, am I not allowed to asset logical explanations to refute this claim? Simply because an American said it? How far gone is the logic?
Point 5: Con says "authorities provide additonal support to logical arguments." This statement is true. However Con has not provided ANY VALID logical arguments and ONLY relied authorities to make his point. This is an appeal to authority fallacy.
An example of Con's poor logic is demonstrated in Round 2, that I did not have space to cite, but did clarify above with my argument that Knowledge is a prerequisite for belief (or disbelief).
Con's Faulty Logic:
Major premise: God's existence requires knowledge in order to believe.
Minor premise: I don't know if God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, I do not believe in God.
Pro's Correction of Con's Logic:
Major premise: To accept or reject a claim requires knowledge.
Minor premise: I don't know if God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, I cannot accept or reject any claims about God.
IF an agnostic atheists disclaims the possibility of having knowledge on God, saying "i CANNOT know if God exists," it would be dishonest for an atheist to reject any claim at all, based on any knowledge that they cannot have. In debates, logic is the bare minimum. And Con has been found to be unable to surpass that bar
In my response, I will be attacking all of Pro's points in alphabetical order:
A. Pro claims that I have unfairly defined my terms. I say that I have fairly defined my terms. My definitions are better because most of them are derived from credible sources. Oppositely, Pro has not only produced no sources to back his definitions, but Pro's definitions have already been rejected by atheists themselves (i.e. Dr. Dawkins' Scale of Religiosity)
B. Pro claims that I conceded his resolution. But Pro twisted my words. I said: "Perhaps, in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive. But that is no longer the case . . . Instead, they overlap like two links in a chain."
Pro is being dishonest in twisting my words against me. This is another example of Pro's "bad form".
C. Pro maintains that I have misdefined agnosticism "...to suit [my] own [agenda]..." But Pro is relying on his unproven definition of agnosticism to suit his own agenda. What makes my definitions better is not only do they make sense, but my definitions are affirmed by credible authorities. Moreover, I have conceded nothing! Pro is clearly misrepresenting me.
D. Pro says that "original" agnosticism is "the suspension of belief and disbelief together." This is incorrect for several reasons:
1. "Original agnosticism" is outdated; it no longer reflects the modern overlap between agnosticism and atheism. In other words, hardly anyone could qualify as an original agnostic anymore because times have changed.
2. "Original agnosticism" sounds more like spiritual apathy than an actual position on the spirituality. Pro equivocates apathy with agnosticism; the two terms are not interchangeable. Even if Pro is correct, Pro's resolution still fails because atheism can be motivated by apathy. In other words, apathy and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
3. "Original agnosticism" is based on a misunderstood onus. (Note: Onus means "burden of proof") The onus is not placed on agnostics to say whether God exists. Quite the opposite, theists must prove that God exists. After all, Socrates once said that "He who asserts must prove." Agnostics believe that theists fail their onus and, therefore, cannot believe based on said failure. This harkens back to my previous statement: 'Until evidence is presented, it is impossible to know if God exists."
E. Pro states that my insistence of Dr. Dawkins as a source constitutes a logical fallacy. Pro is in error because he misapplies the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Here's the deal: the fallacy occurs when the wrong authority is cited, not when a biased authority is cited. For instance, if I claimed that the President of United States can issues pardons and used Barack Obama as a source, that is not a fallacy. Rather, that is a proper authority that enhances my argument. It would not matter that Barack Obama is biased as a Democrat. It only matters that he is a proper authority, which is evident in the case of President Obama.
F. Pro attacks my Republican/Democrat analogy, saying that it is a false parallel. But hang on. Does the amount of disagreements matter? My point was simply that persons can disagree with generally like-minded persons. Pro missed the entire purpose of my analogy. Thus, my analogy stands in spite of the alleged difference.
G. "Republicans cannot be Democrats at the same time."
Yes, they can. Has Pro ever heard of an Independent? Independents vote both ways all the time! In the same way, there is middle ground between absolute agnosticism and absolute atheism. It's called agnostic atheism!
H. "Atheists have incorrectly defined themselves as being a "lack of belief".
First, the grammar in this sentence is faulty.
Second, - I cannot repeat this enough - times have changed. There are no longer definitive walls between agnosticism and atheism, if ever there were any. The Scale of Religiosity allows for positions to bleed into each other. Pro's logic only makes sense if one adopts the outdated definitions of agnosticism and atheism. In fact, the difference between them is now very insignificant. They are nuanced approaches which can, for some, overlap.
Third, look at the comments section of this debate. All of the commenters agree with me that there is middle-ground between agnosticism and atheism. What's more, most of the commenters are agnostics/atheists who know themselves and their own beliefs much more than Pro.
I. "The fast food burger analogy does not take into account that atheists willingly lie about their position..."
Seriously? Did you just accuse all atheists of lying about their positions? Every atheist is a liar? Pro just made an absolute statement which, by definition, is impossible to prove. Here's the real deal: Pro is trying to tell all atheists that they're wrong. Even worse, Pro is saying that atheists cannot define themselves. If this isn't fallacious, I don't know what is!
J. "Con has not provided any valid logical arguments and [has] only relied [on] authorities to make his point."
Firstly, Pro's grammar seems to get worse with length. Perhaps Pro should make shorter arguments.
Secondly, not so! In my first two rounds, I made several, logical points of my own. Furthermore, citing an authority is a valid argument. The Greek philosopher Aristotle, in his masterpiece called "Rhetoric", wrote that there are three legitimate ways to convince: logos (logic), ethos (authority), and pathos (emotion). I have consistently used logos and ethos throughout my speeches.
K. Pro attacks my syllogism but he doesn't explain what's wrong with it. Pro merely proposes one of his own that is decidedly inferior.
My syllogism:
Major premise: God's existence requires knowledge in order to believe.
Minor premise: I don't know if God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, I do not believe in God.
Pro's syllogism:
Major premise: To accept or reject a claim requires knowledge.
Minor premise: I don't know if God exists.
Conclusions, I cannot accept or reject any claims about God.
Here's my analysis, along with my reason for why my syllogism is superior.
Pro's only "correction" of my syllogism was to add the clause: "accept or reject" to my major premise and my conclusion.
But here is where Pro errs greatly: Can't I reject a claim that has not be positively proven to me?
Socrates said that "He who asserts must prove." Thus, whoever makes the claim that God exists must prove that it is true. The agnostic makes no such claim. Rather, the agnostic investigates to see if the theists' arguments (that assert God's existence) are true. The onus, or burden of proof, is only theists, not the agnostic.
Pro errs because he/she places the onus on the agnostic. The agnostic is suddenly responsible for asserting and proving if God exists. No, this is wrong because the responsibility lies solely on the theists.
Here's the most important part: Unproven assertions can be dismissed without requiring any disproving knowledge.
This is the agnostics' true position. Since the theists fail to prove their assertion, I can dismiss their argument automatically.
I apologize for the long response, but it was made necessary by Pro's overdone responses. Hopefully, Pro's next speech will be substantially shorter.
Nevertheless, I eagerly await the next round. Selah!
Since it seems my opponent is now grasping at Straw-men to add to his list of fallacies, I would like to take some time to go over our arguments to expose the constant fallacious logic of my opponent that obscures reality, while at the same time asking voters to truly consider the logic behind each statement.
Con says my arguments are confusing. Confusing or not, just because something is confusing, doesn't necessarily mean that that something is false. Is that sentence confusing also? Or does it just require some introspection & logic to see that that statement is logically true? I would also like to point out that "bad form" to me, is taking petty ad hominem shots at one's punctuation, with limited space to provide objective reasoning, and all the while complaining about the length of discourse on sufficiently heavy topics that may require more than 3 sentences to explain one's ideas clearly.
Also, I would like to remind Con that neither is this debate measured by one's ability to alphabetize, copy/paste, point fingers at one's "form".
I have already refuted Con's arguments using sound logic, and Con can only attempt to reduce my position by misrepresenting them, while ironically blaming me for the same. When in fact, all I have done is attempted to be honest in this debate, as a sideeff exposing the fallacies in Con's arguments. Exposing fallacies are not in any way attempts to insult or take shots at Con.
I have not misrepresented or "twisted [my opponent's] words against [him.]." In fact, I took a direct quote, from his argument that was indirectly granting me the correctness of my definitions from the beginning. I further paraphrased his correct position (or rebuttal) against my resolution, and explained using LOGIC that even in the 21st century, these words have not changed in their meaning. If a group uses a word incorrectly and unjustifiably to those whom originally claimed that word to label themselves first, then that minority does not have a justified claim to that label. You can call yourself whatever you wish, it doesn't make it necessarily true. A group of villains can call themselves Heroic villains, but that doesn't make them good guys. And as long as agnostics were before "agnostic atheists", agnostics CAN call that label a MISNOMER. and THAT again is LOGIC. is it that confusing?
All Pro can do is say he has "Credible sources." that back his definitions (or shall I say assertions? to which he has yet to provide any logical PROOF). I already pointed out why his sources were NOT credible, but BIASED. Being in a position of authority does not make someone credible. It would appear, Pro does not know what an appeal to authority fallacy even is. Richard Dawkins or any other "agnostic" atheist is not an unbiased source, and cannot give objective insight into the matter. Dawkins is a credible authority on Biology and Evolution, He is NOT a credible source on philosophy, politics, sociology, psychology, theology or atheism. THAT is Logic. You do not REQUIRE a credible source when you say something OBVIOUSLY TRUE. Logic.
When it comes to providing an objective definition for certain types of ideologies, it is important to note that any -ISM, is not necessarily a label for an individual to describe themselves, but a set of pre-established ideological frameworks, in which individuals fall into. Therefore, it's kinda ridiculous to think..someone can label themselves by a pre-established term, then decide what that label means "for me", especially if it doesn't fit with the original meaning. Doesn't it?
According to the philosopher William L. Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God."
"Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology."
-Thomas Huxley...the first agnostic atheist.
"According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in this strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.[2]"
All agnostics, from Hume, Kant, Huxley, Bertrand, Ingersoll, to Noam, whom all seem to agree with your atheist position, vehemently opposed the label atheist for themselves. Instead, all of them chose the term agnostic. It is my argument that those of lesser intellect and scientific understanding have latched on to the term, even hijacking the narrative and agnostic tenets, to represent their own irrational view of Atheism. subtly denying of God's existence. Each of the above characters specifically states their position is the "suspension of judgement and that they neither believe nor disbelieve. During their time, it was the Christian audience to whom they spoke, therefore they speak more about why don't believe. Nowadays, we have a good number of atheist readers, so that we can speak more about why we don't DISBELIEVE.
It's illogical to say the original definition of agnosticism is outdated. Just because a word is old... we don't go around changing what it means. He says it's "spiritual apathy", yet it's not spiritual anything. Agnosticism derives from one's deep and honest pondering about the nature of God, requiring a high degree of mental discipline and studiousness, not to mention HONESTY, that some are simply not equipped with. Even if I agreed, most agnostics are spiritually apathetic that doesn't mean Agnosticism IS spiritual apathy. First, the agnostic would have you define what you mean by "spirit."
Finally, Con thinks "the onus is on theists." As I keep saying over and over again, the onus is on Atheists and Theists. I do not know why Con thinks I am saying the onus is on agnostics. Con has outright fabricated a position to argue against, then provided a fallacious rebuttal against his fabricated argument. Well done. Con does not only misrepresent my ideas, but even that of Socrates. Con does not seem to know what an "assertion" is. Con believes an "assertion' is THE positive claim between two arguments. This is false. An assertion as Socrates used it is simply a "strong claim." In this debate, both Pro and Con are making assertions. If theists are making assertions about God's existence, Atheists are making assertions about the lack of evidence for God's existence. The agnostic is asserting that both sides need to define God, before making either of those claims.
Here are some classic example of Con's straw-men tactics. Con says "Here's the real deal: Pro is trying to tell all atheists that they're wrong. Even worse, Pro is saying that atheists cannot define themselves." Um.. no Con. Pro never said ALL atheists are wrong OR that they cannot define themselves.... this is preposterous..and almost laughable from how my logic flies right over Con's head. Pro SAID Atheists cannot call themselves Agnostic, because it is not an appropriate, fitting, or accurate definition for their ideological beliefs. Quite different.
Pro SAID, ...IF AN (not all) atheist lies about their position, then we are justified in not believing their self claimed position. If a white man calls himself the "n" word, because he feels like it, I guess since he knows himself better than anyone else we must believe the white man is really black.
Finally, in Con's syllogism the major premise is not necessarily true. the premises of an argument should always be necessarily true. I thought that was obvious.
At this point, it seems Con must stop calling himself an atheist to remain honest about his "lacking a belief." Atheism being a disbelief, is a belief and an assertion about the existence of God or lack thereof. And that assertion and belief will require knowledge, since atheists claim their beliefs are based on evidence (ie. know
Thus, I will focus on establishing my definitions before refuting Pro's arguments.
A. Clarifying the definitions.
1. Atheism.
Literally from the Greek, Atheism is translated as "no (or without) god." [1]
Old atheists, or absolute atheists, contend that there is absolutely no God.
2. Agnosticism.
Literally from the Greek, agnosticism is translated as "no (or without) knowledge." [2]
Agnostics, or absolute agonistics, contend that God's existence is absolutely unknowable.
A good discussion on the two definitions can be found here: [3]
Now, given these definitions, is it possible for them to overlap? Yes!
3. Agnostic Atheism.
By combining both definitions, a third category can be created:
"No god because no knowledge."
This is a real position. [4] [5]
Another name for agnostic atheism is new atheism, which is espoused by the aforementioned Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc. [6]
In fact, I would go so far as to say that agnostic atheism is the amalgamation of old atheism and absolute agnosticism. But, regardless, I have proven that there is middle ground between the two positions.
New atheism believes that old atheism is flawed insofar as the latter accepts responsibility for disproving God's existence.
Rather, new atheism is more agnostic in the sense that it lacks belief.
Here are some sources to back this claim up: [7] [8] [9] [10]
New atheists place the onus, or burden of proof, directly (and rightly) upon the real asserter: the theist. Unless the theist can prove his own claim that God exists, the new atheist has no reason to believe or disbelieve at all. There is no reason to care.
I think I have established why my definitions are superior. That said, I advance to refutations.
B. Refuting Pro's Arguments.
1. "[My] opponent is now grasping at [straw-men] to add to his list of fallacies.
I have committed no such fallacies. Here's why:
o Ad Hominem: I have never attacked Pro's credibility expect with playful, hyperbolic sarcasm.
o Appeal to Authority: Bias does not disqualify authority. I made this clear in my President Obama analogy.
o False Analogy: I have defended my hamburger and Democrat/Republican analogies in previous speeches; Pro did not challenge my President Obama analogy. I will not bore the voters by repeating what I've already said ad nauseum.
2. "I would like to remind Con that neither is this debate measured by one's ability to alphabetize, copy/paste, point fingers at one's 'form'"
First of all, Pro's grammar is fallible.
Secondly, I would not have to carefully organize my arguments (i.e. alphabetize) if Pro wasn't so confusing.
Thirdly, expect for my sources, I have not copied/pasted anything. All of my quotations of Pro's arguments have been hand-typed. I am proud of that fact and I won't let Pro disparage my effort.
3. "I have already refuted Con's arguments using sound logic, and Con can only attempt to reduce my position by misrepresenting them..."
Again, the grammar is poor.
But, more importantly, Pro has consistently touted his logical prowess. Yet, I must point out that even Pro begins with some unfounded assumptions: his definitions. Until recently, Pro maintained that he/she logically devised his/her definitions. However, definitions are not concrete as words do change meaning over time. An example of this would be marriage which, as of last year in the United States, now includes same-sex couples. Logic cannot be used to ascertain definitions. Rather, current authorities must be cited and I have cited dictionaries in defining my terms.
Additionally, while on the subject of Pro's logic, Pro's arguments only make sense within his arcane, narrow, and rigid definitions.
4. "I have not misrepresented [Con]... In fact, I took a direct quote..."
No, you didn't. Pro purposely omitted the very first word of the sentence: "Perhaps."
Let me elucidate this point.
Here's what I really said in Round 2:
"Perhaps, in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive."
Here's what Pro quoted in Round 3:
"... in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive."
As you can see, Pro purposely removed the critical word "Perhaps". In doing so, Pro twisted my words by changing my conditional sentence to a direct sentence.
5. "All Pro can do is say he has 'credible sources' that back his definitions (... he has yet to provide any logical proof)."
Again, logic is insufficient to define words. For instance, based on pure logic, could you tell me what "gelid" means? Without a dictionary (an authority, mind you), how could you possibly know that "gelid" means "extreme cold"? [11] Definitions also require authorities because words change meanings. Likewise, the word atheism has changed and we need to acknowledge that fact. New atheists aren't liars; they're practitioners of the new meaning of a word.
6. "Richard Dawkins... is not a credible source on philosophy, politics, sociology, psychology, theology, or atheism."
What? Do I really have to defend the obvious? Hasn't Richard Dawkings published books on atheism and religion? Isn't there a book out there called "The God Delusion"? Hasn't Richard Dawkins argued with theists at colleges and universities? Couldn't one say that Dawkins is the face of new atheism?
How about you e-mail Richard Dawkins and tell him he isn't an expert (i.e. credible authority) on atheism. I wouldn't be surprised if he laughs at you. Seriously, Pro's audacity is both incredible and ridiculous!
7. "THAT is Logic. You do not REQUIRE a credible source when you say something OBVIOUSLY TRUE. Logic."
I am weary of correcting Pro's over-capitalization for artificial emphasis. I am also tired of compensating for Pro's horrific grammar. "Logic." That, my friend, is a sentence fragment.
On the actual substance, I agree with Pro. Self-evident truths need not require credible sources. But little to none of what Pro has stated can be classified as "obviously true." For instance, Pro maintains that his/her definitions are just logical. Yet, as I have shown, logic alone cannot ratiocinate the meaning of words. So Pro stretches the applicability of logic in an attempt to cover up his relative lack of sources.
8. "...William L. Rowe..."
Rowe is outdated; the words have changed since his time.
9. "Just because a word is old... we don't go around changing what it means."
Incorrect. Examples of changes include: gentleman, gay, and marriage.
10. "[The] onus is on [atheists] and [theists]"
Incorrect. Theists are the asserters. As such, following the rule of "he who asserts must prove", theists are alone responsible for proving God's existence. Atheists do not assert that God's inexistence. Rather, atheists find fault with the theists' proofs and, therefore, lack belief.
11 "Con does not seem to know what an 'assertion' is."
Actually, I do. That would've been a nice joke if only it had a punchline.
12. "Pro never said [atheists]... cannot define themselves."
But you say in the same paragraph: "...Atheists cannot call themselves agnostic..."
You just contradicted yourself.
There is overlap. I win
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6] Pigliucci, Massimo. "New Atheism And The Scientistic Turn In The Atheism Movement." Midwest Studies In Philosophy 37.1 (2013): 142-153. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
[10]https://www.youtube.com... (Pardon the profanity)
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by U.n 2 years ago
Posted by JayShay 2 years ago
Gnostic atheist: someone who does not believe in god(s) and is certain its/their lack of existence can be proven
Agnostic theist: someone who believes in god(s) but does not believe its/their existence can be proven
Gnostic theist: someone who believes in god(s) and is certain its/their existence can be proven
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
What should be most obvious about this technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know.
Posted by zookdook1 2 years ago
An agnostic does not know whether God exists.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.


text:
Events Calendar
Canadian Firearms Safety Course Non Restricted
Friday 19 January 2018, 06:00pm - 10:00pm
Contact 780-632-7920
This is a 2 day Canadian Firearms Safety Course and is required to take before taking the Restricted Canadian Firearms Safety Course. Participants must be 16 years of age. Course is Friday 6:00 pm - 10:00 pm and Saturday is 8:00 am until completion.
Preregistration is required call VegMin at 780-632-7920
Location VegMin Learning Society


text:
Using a project management application can provide significant benefits to companies looking to streamline processes in their businesses. It can greatly reduce time spent on planning as well as increase team productivity. It's just a matter of finding which application is right for you.
If you're using Office 365 (or considering moving to it soon), you likely already have a few options available to you (apps and programs vary by plan):Read More »


text:
Thief Of Hearts (1984)
Thief Of Hearts Photos
Movie Info
Watch it now
as Scott Muller
as Mickey Davis
as Ray Davis
as Buddy Calamara
as Janie Pointer
as Marty Morrison
as Sweeney
as Stunts
as Nicole
as Security Guard
as Parking Attendant
as Himself
as College Girl
as College Girl
as Reception Guest
as Reception Guest
as Reception Guest
as Reception Guest
as Reception Guest
as Helicopter Pilot
Critic Reviews for Thief Of Hearts
All Critics (6) | Fresh (0) | Rotten (6) | DVD (2)
This is a dreary, dull and altogether grating film, one that's as derivative and simple as it is just plain boring.
Audience Reviews for Thief Of Hearts
There are no featured audience reviews yet. Click the link below to see what others say about Thief Of Hearts!
Thief Of Hearts Quotes
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.